ATTENTION PITTSBURGH! ELLEN HERMAN TO SPEAK AT PITT

Pittsburgh History Department Graduate Program Speaker Series,

Pittsburgh Consortium for Adoption Studies,

University of Pittsburgh School of Arts and Sciences,

Department of English, Women’s Studies Program, and Cultural Studies Program

Present

Scientific Rules for Realness:

Matching and Its Critics in American Adoption

Ellen Herman

Professor of History

University of Oregon

Tuesday, September 29

4:00 - 6:00 pm

History Department Lounge

(3703 Posvar Hall)

University of Pittsburgh

Ellen Herman’s most recent book is Kinship by Design: A History of Adoption in the Modern United States (University of Chicago Press, 2008). She has also written about the impact of psychology on public policy and culture during and after World War II: The Romance of American Psychology: Political Culture in the Age of Experts (University of California Press, 1995). Her recent work has been supported by fellowships at Harvard Law School and Radcliffe's Bunting Institute, as well as by a major research grant from the Science and Technology Studies Program of the National Science Foundation. During the 2004-2005 academic year, she was a Visiting Scholar in the Harvard University Department of the History of Science.

Her current book considers the history of child adoption during the twentieth century as a case study of social engineering, or kinship by design. The historical claim of kinship by design has been as simple as it has been ambitious: to reduce uncertainty and increase certainty in family formation. Kinship by design promised to inject safety, naturalness, and authenticity into a family form culturally marked as hazardous, artificial, and less real than the “real thing.” The book will cover a range of efforts to regulate the adoption process as well as study and help members of adoptive families. It suggests that the adoption story has as much to tell us about the history of the welfare state, scientific authority, and therapeutic culture as it does about childhood, family life, and other experiences we classify as “private.”

HAND ME THE SKEWER: POUND PUP SERVES ELIZABETH BARTHOLET UP ON A PLATTER

Obviously, I've been away again Not really away away, just working on some other projects.

Today, I want to point you to Pound Pup's Niels Hoogeveen's skewering of Harvard AdoptaMaven Elizabeth Bartholet. Never has Bastardette taken such satisfaction is seeing one of our major child redistribution globalists and corruption apolgists so deservedly BBQ'd and served on a platter.

Here's a couple excerpts from Are interational adoption critics really wrong?

... Ms. Bartholet doesn't consider adoption to take place as a child welfare activity, but as something part of the legal system. Formally that is not necessarily incorrect. In the end adoption passes a judge, but it ignores the fact that most of the activities in adoption have nothing to do with the legal system. The acquisition of customers, the allocation of adoptable children, the preparation and screening of prospective adopters, all of that has nothing to do with the legal system, but are part and parcel of every adoption. So the abuses that take place in inter-country adoption cannot singularly be placed as part of the abuses of the legal system in general. On top of that two wrongs do not make one right. Abuses in the legal system are not an apology for the abuses in inter-country adoption.

and (indentation quote from Bartolet)

There is no political will to reform law and when we look at the Hague Convention it is obvious that no such will has ever existed. Central authorities, the key aspect of the Hague Convention, only centralize corruption, if that corruption wasn't already centralized (like it was the case with India and China). The Hague Convention is a toothless paper tiger that does nothing to prevent child trafficking, it streamlines the adoption process between sending and receiving countries.

International adoption critics argue that it is naive to think that adoption laws can be enforced in certain countries, given corruption and limited capacities for governance. But even if adoption abuses occur on more than an occasional basis, and even if eliminating them would be hard, shutting down international adoption is wrong. Zero tolerance for adoption abuses may sound good but it will hurt children. The evils involved in such abuses must be weighed against the far more significant evils involved in denying children homes.

This is a very curious passage. It is indeed naive to think adoption laws can be enforced in certain countries. The influence on a country like China is most unlikely, they don't even allow UNICEF inspections, let alone accept criticism from other countries. Ethiopia, one of the other big sending countries, is such a mess that law enforcement itself is decades away. In Guatemala critics of inter-country adoption have to fear for their lives. So yes it's very true that it's naive to think that adoption laws can be further enforced in sending countries.

But the curious thing is that while more or less acknowledging some corruption could take place, Ms. Bartholet seems to see it as wrong to stop a practice that can not be bettered. If her reasoning is true, it's better to steal a child for inter-country adoption than not adopting the child at all. The evil of stealing a child weighs less in her opinion than not providing a child (that already had a home) a replacement family. This is very curious apology for child stealing to me, unless we look at it from the business point of view where indeed it is worse not to have supply when demand is so high.

Please read Neils' entire essay and the comments that follow it. This is an important piece that needs wide distribution.

DEMONS IN ADOPTION AWARDS - BALLOT NOW UP!

It's that time again!

The Third Annual Demons in Adoption Awards ballot is now online.

This is your opportunity, as one bludgeoned by adoption, to vote for your favorite adopta thief, babyseller, flim-flamist, money launderer, or bunco artist, all from the comfort of your own home or office.

We are disappointed that CARE founder Jean Stauss didn't make the final cut. We noted with amusement earlier this year that some anonymous bastard (not yours truly) nominated the rights-down-the-river seller and all-around Benedict Bastard for this prestigious honor. We were looking forward to the opportunity to vote for Strauss, the American Adoption Congress' 2009 Emma Vilardi Humanitarian Award. Funny, how one organization's humanitarian is another organization's demon.

Still, we have so many good choices left that we shall have to pray about it before we hit the key. It's a tuffy!

Here's the official press release from Pound Pup, sponsor of the awards:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
*************************************************************

Each year Pound Pup Legacy presents the Demons of Adoption Award to raise a voice against adoption propaganda and the self congratulatory practices of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute's annual Angels in Adoption Awards (TM)

Until October 30 you will have the opportunity to vote for the recipient of this year's award.

The nominees are:

* Adoptions First for offering of a free birth mothers package;

* Athanasios Kollias aka Teo for the involvement in various Guatemalan child trafficking cases;

* Barnardos for promoting the removal of children and have them adopted as the solution to family breakdown;

* Bethany Christian Services for using coercive tactics obtaining infants for their customers;

* Deborra Lee-Furness for pushing laxer regulations in inter-country adoption;

* Harry and Bertha Holt for starting the placement of "special needs children" who are truly not adoptable, into the homes of already huge families;

* Independent Adoption Center for plugging their business on WE tv's Adoption Diaries, making them the non-denominational Bethany;

* Joint Council on International Children's Services for supporting temporary movement of foreign children to America because such trial-basis "exchange" programs "help" the adoption process;

* LDS Family Services for using coercive tactics in obtaining infants for adoption and for not respecting paternal rights;

* Scott and Karen Banks for child trafficking, coercive adoption practices and the abandonment of their adopted children;

* The Dutch Ministry of Justice for preventing research into corrupt adoption practices in China, because of diplomatic and business relations with that country;

* The Malawi Government for allowing Madonna to adopt Mercy James.

Go here to vote.


Addenda: Here is the official press release on the awards (different from the link to Pound Pup's page.) Please click to boost it to the top of Google. And if you have a blog, link it.